I am a bestselling author and a freelance journalist who concentrates on man’s struggle to keep the state in balance with the American dream. My latest book is The Future of the Gun. I am also the author of The Ultimate Man's Survival Guide. My website is www.frankminiter.com. I am a former senior editor at Outdoor Life and a former executive editor for American Hunter (an NRA magazine). I still write for the NRA's publications and I am a "field editor" for American Hunter. This is a purely gratuitous title, but one I'm proud of, as I am a life member of the NRA. I mention all this because Media Matters has been saying I'm secretly an "NRA employee" to attack my credibility on the gun issues. When they can't handle the facts they attack the messenger.

Is Rick Santorum a Closet Animal Rights Activist?

The question posed by this headline is buzzing in blogs in the agricultural industry and sportsmen’s rights groups. The anxiety stems from Rick Santorum’s backing (and, when in the U.S. Senate, sponsoring) bills animal-rights groups are advocating, but that agricultural groups and sportsmen’s organizations oppose.

In one example, in 2001 then Sen. Santorum (R-PA) introduced S. 1478, the Puppy Protection Act of 2001, with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). This act intended to improve conditions for dogs at “puppy mills” by addressing socialization and breeding issues, and by creating a “three strikes and you’re out” system for violators of the Animal Welfare Act.

“The bill will require commercial breeders to provide socialization for dogs at their facilities,” Santorum said at the time.

Santorum did more than back animal-rights legislation; he even held a press conference in 1995 in which he was pictured alongside Wayne Pacelle, an animal-rights activist who now heads the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). For those of you who don’t know HSUS, its positions are similar to PETA’s and no, they don’t run your local pet shelter; in fact, HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter in the U.S. and only gives about one percent of its money to pet shelters. What HSUS does is spend its money on anti-farming and anti-hunting campaigns.

A 1995 issue of Animal People, an animal-rights newspaper, reported that: “August 10 [1995] dawned bright for the Humane Society of the U.S., as newspapers across the country carried a photo of HSUS director of legislative affairs Wayne Pacelle and Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) decrying puppy mills at a press conference….”

The Puppy Protection Act of 2001 failed, but is now alive again in Congress as the “Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act.” If passed, and signed by say, a President Santorum, the bill would put federal bureaucrats in charge of dog breeders by mandating the age at which dogs can be bred. It would also stipulate the number of litters a dog could have. A bureaucrat would even need to know how many puppies a breeder sells.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the pet industry and the hunting community (many small breeders specialize in trained hunting dogs) have argued that whether or not a dog should be bred should be decided by a partnership between an owner and that owner’s veterinarian, not by some distant federal bureaucrat.

Santorum’s Puppy Protection Act also had had a nasty bite. It had the “three-strikes” provision that established mandatory revocation of licenses for anyone who committed three violations of the Animal Welfare Act during an eight-year period. As written, the legislation would have applied to all individual agencies licensed under the Animal Welfare Act, not only puppy mill dealers.

This position by Santorum wasn’t an anomaly. In fact, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) gave Santorum an 80-percent approval rating in 2006.

Now politics may make for strange bedfellows, but HSUS is an exceedingly odd group for Santorum to get high marks from; especially when you consider that in 2006 (and in other years) Santorum was named a “Friend of the Farm Bureau” by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau (PFB). This award is given annually to members of Congress who vote in favor of issues considered to be beneficial to the Farm Bureau.

Gary Swan, director of government affairs and communications for the PFB, says, “We haven’t looked closely at his animal-rights positions, but when Santorum was in office we always found him to be helpful to our interests.”

Making this juxtaposition of views even stranger, in 2006 Santorum voted to stop horse slaughtering by defunding mandatory federal inspections of horse-processing facilities. This position might at first sound humane; after all, the idea that Black Beauty and Seabiscuit can be killed when their racing days are done so their meat can be sent to dog-food companies would bring tears to any little girl’s eyes. However, the truth is that ending horse slaughtering was inhumane.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Mr. Minter, you are either buying into the Factory Farm/Breeder/Puppy Mill/Hunting Lobby lies or deliberately misleading your readers about The Humane Society of the United States. They don’t claim to run pet shelters (many shelters contain Humane Society in the name, but are not affiliated), nor do they spend money on anti-farming and hunting campaigns. They spend money on anti-factory farming campaigns where cruel methods are employed such as confining baby cows for their entire lives to dark, indoor wooden restraining devices not even big enough to turn around or lie down, they are anti-stuffing egg-laying hens into cages with not enough room to spread their wings, and they are against gestation crates too small for female breeding pigs to turn around, in which they are forced to lie on their stomachs their entire adult lives (3 to 4 years) until they are transported long distances to slaughter plants with no food or water. HSUS is also against cruel, captive (trophy hunting). But to say they spend their money on anti-hunting and anti-farming campaigns is an outright lie.

You might as well save your breath regarding The HSUS and being anti-hunting. Frank Miniter wrote the book on that issue. ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting’ which I love, but unfortunately he isn’t educated on the details of puppy mills or U.S. horse slaughter for human consumption by the French and Belgians. I’m with you Melissa on the issue of giving God’s animals in factory farms the ability to have more space so they can at least move.

Spare us the HSUS propaganda. The Humane Society of the US sells itself as an animal welfare group, complete with ads showing pathetic animals on the streets being “rescued” with viewers’ donations, but almost none of those donations go to animal welfare or shelters.

Most of the money the HSUS brings in goes into the pockets and retirement funds of HSUS employees.

Melissa: You are completely wrong. HSUS is out to destroy animal agriculture. That is why they have and continue to support bills that legislate how farmers can raise and care for their animals. The organization’s end goal – and Mr. Purcell himself has said this – is to end animal agriculture. My husband and I farm and raise cattle in Central Kansas and outside of the EPA, our biggest enemy is HSUS. Have you actually seen any of these “horrible” animal practices that HSUS advertises? Farmers care for their animals because they are our livelihood. Harming our animals only harms our business and our way of life. Your entire comment is a contradiction because you spell out all of the campaigns HSUS is involved in to change farming and agricultural practices but then say HSUS does not spend its money on anti-farming campaigns. They spend millions of dollars each year to try to tell me and others in agriculture how to do our jobs.

Do you use gestation crates, veal pens or battery cages, and do you supply McDonald’s, etc.? You must be aware of the actual percentage of U.S. meat and eggs that come from family farms, right? Just because you are doing it correctly and humanely, surely you’re aware of how many aren’t.

Katie & Derek, Do you use gestation crates, veal pens or battery cages, and do you supply McDonald’s, etc.? You must be aware of the actual percentage of U.S. meat and eggs that come from family farms, right? Just because you are doing it correctly and humanely, surely you’re aware of how many aren’t.

Katie & Derek, do you use gestation crates, veal pens and battery cages, and do you supply McDonald’s, etc.? You must be aware of the actual percentage of U.S. meat and eggs that come from family farms, right? Just because you are doing it correctly and humanely, surely you’re aware of how many aren’t.

Hey Melissa. I’m glad to see that you and many people are so interested in farming and animal welfare. Have you ever been to a pig farm or cattle farm, or choose whichever animal you might be thinking of. I know there are some bad ones out there. I invite you to go talk to some of the people who own or operate those buildings. You might find that they care about the animals. Then again you might find that they don’t. I absolutely think that people need to be aware of what goes on behind the scenes before the food gets on their plate or the pet enters there home. They also need to understand why the producer does what they do. As long as the facts are right and straight from the source I think people will be able to make an informed decision. If they see methods they think to be cruel, find a source that supports your ideals and pay for that. If we would encourage people to connect with the producers or other parts of the chain it would lead to steady improvement in each industry. The only issue I have with HSUS is that they try to use legislation more than information to push what they deem as acceptable. Conservatives, lets leave the government out of this because when you use regulation to target “bad people” in industries it usually hurts everybody. Then it has the effect of raising prices higher and/or importation from cheaper sources, like Mexico, and their welfare standards are far below ours. Just a thought.

Also, I background cattle and I know I care about them because it is my livelihood. I hate to see them sick or suffering in anyway so I do everything I can to make them comfortable. Honestly if the cattle aren’t happy or healthy then they don’t gain weight very well adding insult to injury. Melissa, sadly I haven’t been in a modern Pog building, but I know many people who own and operate them and they care about their animals too. I’d love to ask them some questions for you as I’d like to go and look at their places to see how they operate. Any questions you have for me would be great as well.

Hey Melissa. I’m glad to see that you and many people are so interested in farming and animal welfare. Have you ever been to a pig farm or cattle farm, or choose whichever animal you might be thinking of. I know there are some bad ones out there. I invite you to go talk to some of the people who own or operate those buildings. You might find that they care about the animals. Then again you might find that they don’t. I absolutely think that people need to be aware of what goes on behind the scenes before the food gets on their plate or the pet enters there home. They also need to understand why the producer does what they do. As long as the facts are right and straight from the source I think people will be able to make an informed decision. If they see methods they think to be cruel, find a source that supports your ideals and pay for that. If we would encourage people to connect with the producers or other parts of the chain it would lead to steady improvement in each industry. The only issue I have with HSUS is that they try to use legislation more than information to push what they deem as acceptable. Conservatives, lets leave the government out of this because when you use regulation to target “bad people” in industries it usually hurts everybody. Then it has the effect of raising prices higher and/or importation from cheaper sources, like Mexico, and their welfare standards are far below ours. Just a thought.

Also, I background cattle and I know I care about them because it is my livelihood. I hate to see them sick or suffering in anyway so I do everything I can to make them comfortable. Honestly if the cattle aren’t happy or healthy then they don’t gain weight very well adding insult to injury. Melissa, sadly I haven’t been in a modern Pig building, but I know many people who own and operate them and they care about their animals too. I’d love to ask them some questions for you as I’d like to go and look at their places to see how they operate. Any questions you have for me would be great as well.

Hey Melissa. I’m glad to see that you and many people are so interested in farming and animal welfare. Have you ever been to a pig farm or cattle farm, or choose whichever animal you might be thinking of. I know there are some bad ones out there. I invite you to go talk to some of the people who own or operate those buildings. You might find that they care about the animals. Then again you might find that they don’t. I absolutely think that people need to be aware of what goes on behind the scenes before the food gets on their plate or the pet enters there home. They also need to understand why the producer does what they do. As long as the facts are right and straight from the source I think people will be able to make an informed decision. If they see methods they think to be cruel, find a source that supports your ideals and pay for that. If we would encourage people to connect with the producers or other parts of the chain it would lead to steady improvement in each industry. The only issue I have with HSUS is that they try to use legislation more than information to push what they deem as acceptable. Conservatives, lets leave the government out of this because when you use regulation to target “bad people” in industries it usually hurts everybody. For animals it would have the effect of raising prices higher and/or importation from cheaper sources, like Mexico, and their welfare standards are far below ours. Just a thought.

Also, I background cattle and I know I care about them because it is my livelihood. I hate to see them sick or suffering in anyway so I do everything I can to make them comfortable. Honestly if the cattle aren’t happy or healthy then they don’t gain weight very well adding insult to injury. Melissa, sadly I haven’t been in a modern Pig building, but I know many people who own and operate them and they care about their animals too. I’d love to ask them some questions for you as I’d like to go and look at their places to see how they operate. Any questions you have for me would be great as well.

Melissa, we raise cattle and we do not use veal pens. We raise all of our animals to full maturity. We raise cows from birth to full maturity. As jbyoyo said, the health and wellbeing of our animals are essential to our bottomline. We interact with our animals daily and ensure that they are happy and healthy animals. Yes, we likely supply McDonalds and other large chain restaurants but that does not make our meat inferiour to meat served at any five-star restaurant. Families own and operate more than 90 percent of the farms and ranches in this country. Factory farms is an incorrect and deregotary term many have applied to large farms. Large farms are just that, large farms. They are still owned and operated by families that give considerable care and attention to their animals. As jbyoyo, if you have questions about where your food comes from and how animals are raised and care for, please ask a farmer or a farm organization in your area. We, as farmers, are always happy to show you what we do and how we do it. We take pride in our farms and animals and are part of an agriculture industry that produces the healthies, most affordable food source in the world.

Melissa, we raise cattle and we do not use veal pens. We raise cows from birth to full maturity. As jbyoyo said, the health and wellbeing of our animals is essential to our bottomline. We interact with our animals daily and ensure that they are happy and healthy animals. Yes, we likely supply McDonalds and other large chain restaurants but that does not make our meat inferiour to meat served at any five-star restaurant. Families own and operate more than 90 percent of the farms and ranches in this country. Factory farms is an incorrect and deregotary term many have applied to large farms. Large farms are just that, large farms. They majority are still owned and operated by families that give considerable care and attention to their animals. As jbyoyo said, if you have questions about where your food comes from and how animals are raised and cared for, please ask a farmer or a farm organization in your area. We, as farmers, are always happy to show you what we do and how we do it. We take pride in our farms and animals and the fact that we are part of an agriculture industry that produces the healthiest, most affordable food source in the world.

are you calling REAL, LIVE VIDEOS of abused animals living in horrific conditions propaganda?? Explain all these videos of animal rescues and all the thousands of animals that have been saved: http://video.humanesociety.org/

Anyone can go to Charity Navigator to see the high rating HSUS has and see the percentage spent on administration salaries. There is no secret. They are a NATIONAL org. NOT a local org. If you want to donate to your local humane society look them up.

I agree with you. David Martosko is a spokesperson various front groups, most notably the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), where he is the Director of research. CCF is an industry-funded organization and front group for the restaurant, alcohol, tobacco and other industries. It’s a non-profit organization and tax exempt under the IRS code 501(c)(3). Rick Berman’s PR company, Berman & Co. for “management services” is part of this group. They are powerful lobbying groups dedicated to destroying PETA and HSUS, and any group who represents a threat to their industries. Check out the CCF website. It’s interesting to see how their propaganda has permeated the media, and influenced people who don’t bother to check out sources.

It doesn’t sound as if your business would be a target for animal welfare groups. I think it’s pretty decent of Santorum to try to alleviate unnecessary suffering of animals. Having “dominion over animals” doesn’t mean cruelty is o.k.

No they don’t! They just say if someone is purchasing a puppy to meet the breeding mother/parents and see for themselves where the puppy was born to be sure its parents aren’t rotting away behind closed doors inside a puppy mill in a cage the size of a dishwasher on wire floors. — No respectable breeder sends their puppies off to places unknown. They meet the person or family purchasing their puppy. I have a new facebook group page: ‘Hunters/Fishermen Against Puppy Mills’ – Many hunters oppose puppy mills.

The H$U$ says there’s no such thing as a responsible breeder. Wayne Pacelle himself said:

When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.

HSUS does not believe in owning animals, period. Animal ownership is the cruelty in their mind. All their legislative initiatives are steps toward outlawing animal ownership. They create the image of a huge problem where there is none. Santorum is advocating licensing small animal breeders. Most small dog breeders have their dogs and litters in their home. So now you want to regulate non-businesses in their home? Sounds like big government to me.

Most small dog breeders have their dogs and litters in their home?????? Where did you pull that stat from? You might want to let Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and the Amish in on that one. Also, while you’re at it, inform pet stores that acquire their dogs from commercial breeders (puppy mills), which would be just about all of them. I guess you’re saying Missouri pulls in 40 million a year from “at home” breeding? I’m gonna guess that the overwhelming majority of people who volunteer or work for animal welfare organizations have pets, either dogs, cats or both. So that would cancel out your theory that HSUS is “against dog ownership.” If you’re gonna be “for dogs” you probably shouldn’t advocate for animal cruelty with facts that you pull out of your butt. And representing the pet industry, you would think (hope) that you would be more enlightened to the facts. If you’re the same “for dogs” that comments on every article that mentions this subject, I’ll ask you again, “how do you sleep at night?” Mr. Miniter just sounds uninformed. He thinks being conservative politically automatically means you are pro animal cruelty. He doesn’t realize that when it comes to protecting animals, not all of the public will do the right thing, which is why legislation is necessary. Decent human beings realize we have laws against murder, torture and abuse of humans, and must extend this to other living beings as well. If a warped mind wants to refer to it as socialism, so be it.

You really don’t have a clue. You have large commercial breeders that are regulated by USDA. They produce puppies for the mass market with the aim of making a profit. They do not keep their dogs in the living conditions that HSUS loves to show in videos over and over again while repeating ‘puppy mill’. The images they conjure up are not synonymous with commercial breeders. The places that keep their dogs like the videos should be shut down and there are enough laws to do just that without regulating every one that has a litter. There are mid size breeders that usually use a combination of kennels and their home and their home is where the puppies are born and raised the first couple of months. You also have small breeders that do not have kennels and they do raise their dogs in their homes with access to a backyard like most pet owners. The medium and small breeders have a passion for a particular breed and their main goal is to preserve their breed and they enjoy activities with their dogs. They spend by far more money on their dogs than they ever could make off a litter. Santorum does not understand the difference between the HSUS rhetoric and the truth and feels all people that breed dogs must be regulated. The one thing you say that is true is that a majority of shelter workers & volunteers own pets. But, how does that dis-prove HSUS agenda? HSUS advocates the spay/neuter of all dogs and no more breeding. No births = no dogs = no pet ownership

PJ obviously meant USDA licensed is still a puppy mill. And why are we talking about HSUS, yet again? Cruelty is cruelty and it doesn’t take HSUS to point it out for us. It is not a natural existence for a domestic dog to be confined to a cage as a breeding machine, with no love, exercise or protection from the elements (or indoors with no sunlight)…only to be dumped at a shelter or “disposed of” some other way when they outlive their usefulness. The very nature of commercial breeding and using dogs as cash cows, is cruelty, and without a doubt needs to be regulated…which thankfully most people, including Rick Santorum are aware of, (once they are educated to the facts). So harp on and on about HSUS as you always do…to divert from the issue at hand (the subject of this article)…legislating against animal cruelty.

Your description of commercial breeders is right out of the HSUS handbook and based on a very few cases, a script developed to turn people against all breeders as if it were the norm. There are laws to stop animal cruelty but you and Santorum ignore the truth and would prefer regulating U.S. citizens and legislating against animal ownership.

I cannot believe that you are questioning Santorum on his stances against puppy mills and horse slaughter. The real consequences of both of these industries are pain and suffering for tens of thousands of animals. It is a surprise to me that conservatives cannot be against animal suffering.

Question, What is more cruel putting a horse down because you can’t take care of it anymore or releasing it on public lands so it starves to death?

The problem with animal rights legislation is well it seems well-intentioned the truth is HSUS believes in a vegan lifestyle, wants to end Animal Agriculture and pet ownership all together. Enabling the government to choose how you breed your dog opens the doors for so many other regulations in your home. For farmers & ranchers it means the government has more control over how you run your business.

As conservatives free market and limited government are our core values! Animal rights legislation does not fall in line with that.

I’m a Christian/Conservative – Pro-Hunting/Fishing and I’m opposed to animal suffering and abuse. A quick kill is approved by the Living God, but in Proverbs 12:10 God tells us that a righteous man cares for the life of his beast … God gives many examples of caring for animals in the Bible, but God also makes it clear that killing and eating animals is permitted by mankind. — I have helped with puppy mill rescues time and again as well as have been involved in the horse slaughter issue for years. I am against dog/cat slaughter as well as horse slaughter as it is not our culture here in the U.S. to eat these animals.

So Marie, since we don’t consume horses here in the U.S. (loaded with substances not intended for human consumption) you are okay with the French and Belgians transporting them (transport breaks their legs and many die in transport as it’s cruel to put them in double deck trucks too short for horses) to slaughterhouses in Mexico, where they render them immovable with a knife and Canada? — That must mean you’re fine if the Chinese want to set up dog/cat slaughterhouses here in the U.S. as an excuse to use their fur. The U.S. doesn’t need, nor want other countries coming here and setting up whatever business they want using our companion animals in the process. U.S. horse slaughter by the French and Belgians is 1% of our entire horse population. We have a huge horse infrastructure that can easily re-absorb that amount. No excuse! — And Frank saying that horses are glutting the country is a lie. The French and Belgians are STILL purchasing via killer buyer at our U.S. horse auctions approx. 100,000 horses, just as they were when we had the last three horse slaughterhouses here in Texas and Illinois.

The horses are frozen steaks when the French and Belgians get them, they aren’t WHOLE when sent there but it does give sustenance to someone and a fast death without having to be hauled to another country where its uncertain how humane that death might be.

I believe the HSUS and their minions should stay out of animals, they know very little about them……that is of USE with/for the animals.

I believe that if Santorum was what he SAID he was…. a TRUE CONSERVATIVE, then he would not have bought into their bunk in the first place.

While I am not sure about the nutritional value of horse for human consumption I can’t imagine that they contain “substances not intended for human consumption.” But that’s besides the point and so what if French & Belgian want to eat them.

If the the chinese want to set up a slaughterhouse in the US more power to them. Think of the economics benefits it would add to the community they are in. While we as Americans choose not to eat or wear certain animals other countries do. Why should we stop them becasue we have an emotional attachment to an animal?

The thing with horse slaughter is not just about what the French & Belgians eat. Banning horse slaughter has made it extremely difficult if not impossible “to take care of” aging horses, unwanted horses and plain over population. Here in Oregon people are releasing them on public lands which then the BLM has to take care of them spending your tax dollars to feed them and they ruin creek banks.

While the BLM ocassionally feeds them a lot of times these horses are near starvation and sick because they have no vet care. I don’t think that’s humane at all.

Frank is right. Horses are gultting the land particularly Eastern Oregon…I’d invite you to come see for yourself. I guess the only bonus for them there is the wolves can eat them instead of livestock.

Animals are not people they are animals. Some are pets some are meant for eating and using in products. :)

Horses are not raised as food animals and are treated with a lot of drugs that you wouldn’t want in your food. In the racing industry, there’s a saying “7 days from gate to plate” which is how long it takes for a Thoroughbred to finish its last race and get trucked to a Canadian slaughter house.

Thank you for a WONDERFUL ARTICLE. Someone needed to show that this is still happening and you would think that by now he would realize that things sometimes happen in “the best of families”, and livestock and dog breeders are not needing government in their homes and on their farms to “help”…..

I am really not a fan of Rick Santorum; but this time I have to stand up and defend him. The bills he sponsored are animal welfare bills, not animal rights bills. And most decent people believe in animal welfare. Since Frank Miniter so obviously has a problem with kindness to animals, I have to wonder about him, not Rick Santorum.

May I suggest that Miniter actually does some research before writing a piece? He sounds like a spokesperson of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a lobbying agency for the tobacco, food, and restaurant industry. That organization was started with moneys from Philip Morris and even goes after Mothers Against Drunk Driving. And that seems to be the information source that Miniter uses. Gee, where is unbiased journalism????? Can it really be so hard?

Phoebe, your heart is in the right place, but you need to understand the difference between Animal Rights (AR) and Animal Welfare (AW). Despite the fact that the animal rights people deceptively call themselves “welfarists” or “protectionists” outwardly, they have a different agenda than you and I on animal issues. This might help you understand: http://www.keepouranimals.com/animal-rights-is-not-animal-welfare1.html

Santorum: perception is not the reality, just like the deceptive Animal Rights organization and Agenda 21 he supports, all three aim for the collapse of America, despite what they say outwardly: Scroll down past the listings to the article on Agenda 21, the founder of which sits on the HSUS board of Directors: http://petdefense.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/12100/.

Melissa, you obviously subscribe to the AR agenda. That is fine, this is still America and you are entitled to your own opinion, whether based on fact or not. I have a question, tho. Have you ever been to a commercial breeder operation? (I would assume that because of your “puppy mill” annotation that you consider ALL commercial facilities to be abusive, so just wondering if you have ever witnessed anything first-hand?)

I’m betting she hasn’t been to a commercial kennel at all and also that she never went to a hobby breeder (deemed that by IRS because THEY ARE NOT A BUSINESS AND DO NOT MAKE A PROFIT)…..that has a DOG ROOM in their home just for them to “call it home” and should NEVER be set up like a USDA KENNEL because they LIVE WITH THE FAMILY!

Texas has tried to make a BUSINESS of those show breeders too…..making the rules for them has not been easy….can’t put thos drains in the living room floor and make all surfaces impervious to water that is 180 degrees there….but we’re working on it……sofa not as pretty as the old one but….we can do plastic….think they are going to be sorry tho……no income from them? oh well….you MADE us be a business but you can’t make us make a profit!!

I do consider all commercial breeding facilities to be abusive. Domestic dogs thrive on humane interaction, and being caged for life as a cash cow (breeding machine) doesn’t provide for that. I’ve been to “good” ones and “bad” ones and don’t consider any of them to be a natural or humane existence for a domestic dog, nor is shipping and selling their puppies to parties unknown. With millions of perfectly healthy, adoptable dogs entering U.S. shelters yearly…and more than half destroyed…you guys have nothing to worry about. Worry about the poor dogs instead.

I’m not fond of COMMERCIAL EITHER but you know what, I can’t breed enough for people to have as a pet while I’m out showing and I don’t WANT TO…..my PUREBRED DOGS are what most want and I have repeat buyers and they hate waiting too long 5 years just doesn’t turn them on…but I can’t help that….takes too much of my time to breed litters I don’t need….I’ll stick with what is MY USE and MY PURPOSE….but you can’t make me COMMERCIAL just because of what I OWN if I’m not BREEDING IT!

I agree, commercial kennels are a needed part of society if we are going to continue having dogs. The problem as you have stated , I believe, is that these new law proposals don’t add much to regulate the already USDA regulated kennels. These new laws want to regulate people in their homes based on numbers who are not in the business of breeding and selling dogs. Not being able to transform their homes into kennels and not wanting government inspections of their homes to see if the government think their housekeeping ability is good enough to keep dogs, they will be forced to stop all breeding, or reduce the numbers (taking homes away from homeless dogs), or build kennels for the dogs forcing them out of a home raised life. As a result people will only be able to find dogs that come from commercial type situations. There is already a shortage of shelter dogs. The PAWS law that Santorum proposed and the current PUPS he seems to be in favor of are designed to do away with people that breed on a much smaller scale who breed to preserve their breed. The very people that are available to the new dog owners for the dogs life time and will take back a dog at any time. PAWS/PUPS is not legislating against cruelty unless you think any breeding and/or owning of dogs is cruelty.

Frank, I love your book, ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting’, but you are a bit uneducated regarding puppy mills and U.S. horse slaughter for human consumption by the French and Belgians. Have you ever been to a 600 dog puppy mill? — Also, since closing the U.S. horse slaughterhouses, the French and Belgians are STILL purchasing approx. 100,000 of our beautiful and healthy American horses for slaughter. The number hasn’t changed, so saying there is now some glut of horses is a lie. The horses are being transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. I’ve sat behind the killer buyer at horse auctions, they have a quota to fill and they’re still doing it no matter if the slaughterhouses are closed here or not.

I have a new group page on facebook called, “Hunters/Fishermen Against Puppy Mills”. Already 350 have joined the page. I am PRO-HUNTING/FISHING, but very much opposed to horse slaughter for human consumption as well as puppy mills (large-scale commercial breeding operations). If other countries want to slaughter and eat their horses fine, but here in the U.S. Congress even enacted a “National Day of the Horse” to remember what horses mean to the U.S. — Should we now allow the Chinese to come over and slaughter the over 4 million dogs and cats who can’t find homes due to overbreeding?

I am fine with good respectable breeders, as is Santorum. He is not an animal ‘rights’ closet anything. He is an animal ‘welfarist’ like me. I am a Christian, Conservative … Please note that The HSUS does mix up issues of anti-hunting (animal ‘rights/extremist’ issues) with animal ‘welfare’ issues. Just because Rick spoke with Wayne doesn’t make him like Wayne.

There is no over breeding and there is no pet overpopulation except to those that think one dog is pet overpopulation Pet Underpopulation: The Pet Shortage in the US by Loretta Baughan Originally written for Spaniel Journal http://www.kennelspotlight.com/PET_UNDERPOPULATION.pdf

There are not enough closet for him to hide in.. bt this is a great article.. pet ownership is huge in the USA but it is the food issue that we need to worry about. Eggs are already in short supply in Europe and the UK .. prices a re skyrocketing so the people will have to spend mote on food and less on other goods.. want to crash your economy.. make people hungry and poor.. Santorum is not our man for the white house or the dog house

The ultimate goal of the H$U$ and PeTA is the END of ALL human/animal relationships, including your pets. They want NO interaction of humans with animals, be that for companionship, food, medicine, or clothing. Here’s what Santorum’s buddy, Wayne, likes to say:

When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.

“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any nonhuman animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251. (Mind you, this SAME person is touring to promote his book about the human/animal bond! Can we say, “hypocrite”?)

We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993

“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP Humane Society of the US (HSUS), formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Associated Press, Dec 30, 1991

“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP Humane Society of the US (HSUS), formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Full Cry Magazine, Oct 1, 1990.

My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture. Statement made on “AR-Views,” an animal rights Internet discussion group, J P Goodwin, HSUS Grassroots Coordinator while executive director of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade

“We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed [for food] … unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry.” Miyun Park, former HSUS Vice President for Farm Animal Welfare, October 2006, Animals and Society Institute conference

Can America REALLY survive allowing such a rabid hater of humans, and especially women, to be called “the President of the United States”?

How did you come to conclusing that he is a ” rabid hater of humans, and especially women”. There is nothing in your comment that even vaguely hints of that. You are just so shallow that you have no concern for the pain and suffering that is occuring.

The following 12 Step plan was published in 1987, when the concept of Animal Rights was not known. Look at this list VERY CAREFULLY.

Each and every item on that list is being attacked by PETA and the HSUS. And for all of you pet owners out there that STILL do not believe the Animal Rightists want to end ALL PET BREEDING, read item number 10.

From “Politics of Animal Liberation”

by Kim Bartlett, published in ANIMAL AGENDA, November 1987

1. Abolish by law all animal research

2. Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, classroom demonstration and in weapons development

3. Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions, including schools

6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture

7. Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs.

8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.

9. End the international trade in wildlife goods

10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Abolish commerce in animals for the pet trade.

11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports.

12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of species.

NOTE: This was written in 1987, long before genetic engineering and cloning. In this context, “genetic manipulation” means selective breeding”

**Cross-posting notice**

Cross posting is highly encouraged and welcomed. Post this message anyplace that it will be read by those folks still unaware of what is happening to our rights and to our culture.

Frank: Great article on the deceptive voting and views of Mr. Santorum. Thank you – from a farmer – for pointing out that HSUS does not in fact, in any way, support local animal shelters and has an end goal of eliminating all animal agriculture. As a farmer and member of the agriculture community, Santorum’s views worry me and his voting record and past relationships with HSUS leaders do not give me any hope. Thank you again for the honest and insightful article.

Do you use gestation crates, veal pens or battery cages, and do you supply McDonald’s, etc.? You must be aware of the actual percentage of U.S. meat that comes from family farms, right? Just because you are doing it correctly and humanely, surely you’re aware of how many aren’t.

I get so sick of people harping on gestation crates. I was raised on a farm, but we did not raise pigs, we only raised a hog per year for slaughter that we bought from someone who did raise hogs. My daughter showed pigs in HS, she decided to raise pigs out of her show gilt. My reaction was much like yours, nope not allowing that pig to be put in one of those. Piglets were born and that first night she plopped down on 2 of them killing them. The next night she crushed another one. That day I told my husband we either have to buy one of those “farrowing crates” as they’re called around here or build one out of wood or she’s not going to have any pigs left. He built one out of wood and not another pig was killed. That is the main reason crates were invented. Her second year in HS she had another gilt to show, while still having the first pig(sow) they were kept in the same pen until the sow decided at feeding time one morning that the gilt was not going to be allowed to eat, almost seriously injuring my daughter who was quick enough to get out of the way, although she managed to put a pretty good sized gash in the gilt’s neck(her daughter btw). The pigs had to be put in separate pens, now imagine putting several pigs together, not to mention several sows together with babies.

Yes, there are people who manage to raise several pigs together, but not without a higher risk of injury to themselves and their pigs, which is why the cost of the pork from those pigs is so expensive.

I’m not going to defend veal pens, because I don’t agree with it, however if consumers didn’t demand veal they wouldn’t exist. However, I don’t want laws putting them out of business, I just choose to not buy veal. Which is the right of every consumer, if you don’t like something, don’t buy it, if you want pasture raised pork, pay the high cost for pasture raised pork, but don’t try to put people out of business with laws or try to cram your beliefs down the throat of others or try to force them to buy pork they can’t afford. Before you criticize something though, know the reason behind it and farrowing/gestation crates don’t exist because they wanted to be cruel to pigs, they exist because they wanted to stop sows from crushing their babies.

Let’s get one thing straight: laws that require licenses, clean cages, and exercise space for dogs on puppy mills are animal “welfare” legislation, not animal “rights”. An animal rights law would prohibit breeding dogs altogether, for example.

So Santorum supports animal welfare regulations to make one species of animal a little more comfortable and his conservative credentials are challenged? I didn’t realize it was part of the conservative motto to treat dogs like crap. But you are all about to nominate Mitt Romney so I guess that’s your new platform or something.

Also, I can’t believe that he is being lumped in with PETA which openly advocates for rights for all animals, including ones used for food. Not even HSUS takes that position, and certainly Rick Santorum doesn’t.

I think all the sportsmen who are collectively freaking out need to take some Xanax and stop speculating about bizarre conspiracy theories.

>”Let’s get one thing straight: laws that require licenses, clean cages, and exercise space for dogs on puppy mills are animal “welfare” legislation, not animal “rights”. An animal rights law would prohibit breeding dogs altogether, for example.<

Wow, are you brainwashed. The "animal rights" industries (mainly H$U$) have their attorneys write these laws for **incremental legal steps** to make animal ownership more and more difficult, expensive, and society unacceptable. They *deliberately* blur the line between animal welfare and animal rights by proposing "gotchas" in the so-called animal welfare legislation that can be *used* by their sympathizers (and those who want to gain control over or steal from animal industries) to raid, penalize, jail, socially ostracize animal industries. ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund) honcho Davide Favre said in 2004 that this was the strategy in order to eventually elevate the "rights" of animals, including eliminating ownership, and pushing "guardianship" (which is normally reserved for *humans*). The majority of states have animal abuse/cruelty laws which can be enforced against true animal cruelty. Where there might need to be some tweaking to be sure there are no loopholes for true abusers, INSTEAD new onerous legislation that vilifies and persecutes animal industries under **faux animal welfare** guise, gets proposed, and the consequences are NOT unintended by the AR industries. Instead they give AR-sympathizers the legal TOOLS to go after animal industries when they perceive a vulnerable victim. Want a good read that is insightful and well presented? Try David Fritsche's "The Death of a Culture – Understanding the War: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare".

And we already have laws against animal cruelty, we don’t need more laws. Hobby breeders shouldn’t have to allow the government to come into their homes just because they raise dogs.

Children are way more important than an animal and we would never allow the government to say we have to be licensed and allow them free access to our homes if we have children.

If someone is suspected of animal cruelty they can be investigated and the government can follow the laws of our constitution and obtain a search warrant and prove it in court. Although HSUS is building quite a track record of helping government to charge innocent people and not being able to prove their case in a court of law.

Consumers can become responsible and do their homework and know where they’re buying their dog.

Thank you for this article! As for the comments here, you need professional farmers, not vegan political activists, to tell you the truth: Most of the practices criticized by animal rights organizations developed as a way of protecting animals from themselves! (Animals kept in “natural” groups are not always all sweet and cuddly with each other. ) The rest are the result of trying to feed more and more people as cheaply as possible, including vast multitudes of the world’s poor, who as a result are much less hungry than they used to be. If customers really want a change, they are in control right now: They can simply vote with their pocketbooks by buying only food raised the way they want. But it will cost them. And the poor will suffer.

There are always reasons for the ways things are done. And animal industries are not monolithic – they don’t all do everything exactly the same. So when one-size-fits-all laws proposed by animal rights organizations turn out to have disastrous “unanticipated consequences” (as they ALWAYS do) and wipe out whole industries, the public thinks they were “well-meaning but poorly researched. ” But, in fact, they were not poorly researched at all, and the only “ well-meaning” people were the ignorant legislators and voters who didn’t know enough about animal husbandry to see through the propaganda. These laws are carefully planned to SOUND humane but not actually BE humane, because the organizations that write and promote them are vegan political lobbyists who are trying to force their ideology on the rest of us. They don’t want to keep pets or eat meat, and they want to make it impossible for us to, also.

The federal government does not belong in the business of overseeing puppies and chickens anyway. If Rick Santorum were a real conservative instead of a RINO, he would never support such laws. Micromanagement like this has made the government so big and burdensome that it is destroying our economy. Regulatory issues are much better dealt with by local laws and by customers voting with their pocketbooks.

I thank God that we have a candidate with a heart and a brain. Too bad Mr. Miniter doesn’t appear to have either. The errors on the horse slaughter issue clearly prove that Mr. Miniter only knows what the paid pro slaughter lobbyists have told him, he spouts out exactly what they say. Then he trashes Sen. Santorum when he talks to the HSUS which has been the go to national organization for many years and Sen. Santorum didn’t choose the president of it. Why shouldn’t he listen to the HSUS points and then choose which he agrees with. He was right to stand against the puppy mills, they are evil and cruel. Have you ever seen what goes on there? I’m trying not to insult Mr. Miniter but it’s really hard. Sen. Santorum, I called and asked for you to support that puppy mill bill as one of your constituents. I also asked you to vote for the bill to defund USDA inspectors for horse slaughter plants owned by foreign corporations with the horse meat shipped overseas tariff free and horses stolen to fill quotas. Yes, there are quotas to get the max price for the horses. Most recently Kelsey Lefever from PA was accused of lying to horse owners to get their horses for free promising good homes. She may have sold a few but she proclaimed proudly that 120 were sent to slaughter. Her only crime was the deception. Mr. Miniter, you are part of the problem and you are WRONG! Thank you Sen. Santorum, you have my vote and support. I will send you a donation.

I don’t buy this article one bit. When any human ignores the suffering and abuse animals experience at the hands of humans thats a BIG RED FLAG! And when anyone writes an article and misstates facts to misinform others thats another BIG RED FLAG that this person has an agenda and is not to be trusted.

I don’t buy John’s attempt to discredit the author one bit. Remember, Wayne Pacelle and HSUS were the only group willing to partner with Michael Vick, despite his direct participation in the abject torture – electrocution, hanging, etc. of dogs. These were the same dogs HSUS advocated killing, while raising millions for their “care”. HSUS makes PETA look normal. There are MANY other red flags regarding the HSUS crew that prove, beyond any doubt, that they have an agenda and are not to be trusted.

THANKS so MUCH for this article!!! I still was undecided who to vote for this week but I’ve now decided. SANTORUM all the way!!! We need many, many more animal friendly people in office and I hope one that will stand behind his campaign promises. Nice job! You artilce had a lot of badly repeated pro horse slaughter propaganda so I think you need more research on your facts. But thanks for pointing out what an animal friendly person Santorum is. Vote Santorum!

Santorum is NOT dog friendly. Santorum does NOT stand for the constitution and less government as evidenced by his stand on PAWS?PUPS. What is really scary are these people that would vote for him based on his anti-dog proposals.

FYI, Rick Santorum isn’t a “closet” animal advocate at all. He was quite open in his legislative activities about voting for and sponsoring anti-animal cruelty bills when he was a Senator, he was interviewed by the HSUS as a Congressional animal advocate, and frankly, as an animal advocate myself it’s the ONLY thing I can stand about him. I don’t want him to be President because of his bizarre religious agenda, but I fully approve of his compassion toward animals and his desire to better their lot in life.

You should really do your homework and not just repeat factually incorrect statements about horse slaughter from the cattlemen’s lobby, starting with this one: “ending horse slaughtering was inhumane.”

Let’s just shoot that one down first:

Ending horse slaughter was not inhumane. What was inhumane was failing to prevent US horses from being exported to slaughter in Canada and Mexico after the last three slaughter plants were closed down in the US.

This would have happened, but a handful of Congressmen blocked the legislation through a combination of legislative tricks. You can read about them by reading my article here on Forbes.com: “How Many Congressmen Does It Take To Screw a Horse?”

So: ending slaughter wasn’t inhumane. But the legislation that would have stopped the flow of horses to Canada and Mexico certainly was. But you don’t mention that—conveniently.

Next: PETA and HSUS didn’t close down the plants. They were closed down because the US defunded inspections of horse slaughter plants combined with a Texas law dating back to 1949 outlawing horse slaughter in that state and a similar one in Illinois.

They weren’t closed down because of emotional animal rights people, either. The citizens of Kaufman Texas had been fighting for two decades to close Dallas Crown because of the environmental violations that fouled the air in the community and overwhelmed their waste water system, which led to horse blood backing up into residents bathtubs and flowing out of storm drains. You can read about their struggle in another of my articles, “Paul Bacon, Texas Mayor, Kicks Some Tail”—also right here on Forbes.com.

They also fought to close it because it brought down property values and—to top it off—the jobs weren’t filled by Kaufman residents, not the kill floor ones, that is. These were filled with workers who left town when the plant did. As for the plant, it paid no more than $5 in federal taxes on $12 million in sales.

As for your false claim that slaughter is humane for horses:

Temple Grandin, who is widely credited with creating “humane” slaughter systems for cattle, designed one for horses in Canada that was the subject of an undercover video investigation in December. Here’s what was discovered: the captive bolt being used didn’t achieve the legal definition of a “humane stun” which is one shot from the captive bolt to render the animal insensible to pain while it’s being strung up, bled out and butchered.

At the Grandin-designed plant, the horses were being shot repeatedly: five, six and even 11 times. After being tortured this way, many were found to have been strung up and exsanguinated (bled out) while conscious.

I also wrote about this on Forbes.com: “Horse Slaughterhouse Investigation Sounds Food Safety and Cruelty Alarms.” You may want to check it out.

Interestingly, three weeks ago, the CFIA shut down that plant because of that undercover video. They found captive bolt was not humane and reopened a week later, replacing the captive bolt with death by gunshot.

Now a well placed gun shot to the head can kill a horse quickly. Emphasis on “well placed.” But undercover videos show that horses don’t stand still like cows do in slaughterhouses and let you shoot them. You can find a bunch on YouTube showing that horses shot in the head suffer just as much as those repetitively shot by captive both. They slip, fall, rear and avoid the shooter. They get shot multiple times. Humane? No.

As for slaughter being more humane in the US than shipping horses to Canada and Mexico, that’s a relative statement. Cutting off your leg is better than cutting off your head. But that doesn’t make cutting off your leg good for you.

Regarding the USDA and regulation of slaughterhouses, check out FOIA documents showing 900 pages of humane violations occurring at Dallas Crown and Beltex that the USDA recorded but did nothing to stop, punish or penalize back when the plants were up and running.

If you think the USDA does a great job regulating humane treatment of horses stateside, then I’ve got a nice plate of phenylbutazone-laced horse meat to serve you. Speaking of which, it’s the bute that’s going to bring down horse slaughter in Canada and it should end anyone’s hopes for a revived industry here in the US.

Here’s why: the US doesn’t track horses from pasture to plate. Killbuyers fill out (and falsify) their own paperwork attesting that the horses they’re delivering are free of banned substances, meaning thousands of Thoroughbreds (26,600 in 2011) winding up as horsemeat that have been drugged from the time they hit the racetrack to the time they enter the kill chute. And regular US horses are medicated with bute, too, which is banned in any animal used for human consumption. Even a single dose administered is banned in a food animal. Do you think killbuyers weed those horses out? No. They end up in the food chain.

A couple of other false statements in your article:

“after the closure of slaughterhouses in 2006, an increased number of horses glutted the market, making it hard to sell some horses.”

Let me correct you. When the slaughterhouses were shut down in 2007, the same number of horses shipped to Canada and Mexico that had previously been slaughtered in Texas and Illinois.

Here another wrong piece of info: “reports were surfacing of many horses being abandoned on public lands, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Congress’ investigative arm, looked into this dilemma and concluded that the closure of U.S. horse slaughter facilities resulted in the inhumane treatment of horses and a seriously depressed market.”

Wrong again. The stories of horses being abandoned on public lands were found to be concocted by pro slaughter advocates. These stories were investigated with calls to Police departments, reading of reports. The stories were made up.

Now horses do get abandoned. 5,000 were found to have been abandoned near the Mexico border because they were rejected by the Mexicans for slaughter. The kill buyers just let them loose on land with no food or water, where they died by the thousands. So the problem of abandonment, rather than solved by slaughter, is, in fact, caused by it.

Regarding other abandoned horses: I listened to a rancher who is also a public lands commissioner speak at an equine conference about how his dad abandoned an old, beloved, cow pony in a field rather than “chicken it.” The pony collapsed under a tree, starved, and birds pecked its eyes out. The guy telling the story concluded it this way: “wouldn’t it have been better to have slaughtered it instead?”

Now the folks angling to bring slaughter back always say it’s wasteful to chemically euthanize an old horse when it could be slaughtered for food. But regulations forbid the slaughtering of animals that can’t walk, are blind or sick.

Why do you think the Mexicans rejected all those horses that ended up dying in the desert? They don’t want people’s sick old horses. Would you want to eat that?

Further, studies show that the majority of horses slaughtered for meat are between 3 and 10 years old and are perfectly healthy. Lots of these come from overbreeding and are breeding stock themselves or unwanted horses with bad conformation that know one wants. Easier for the breeder to make $300 on it for meat than take a loss.

This brings me to your comment from Blake Hurst, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau: “I can say with a great deal of confidence that Santorum’s relationship with HSUS is a deal killer for much of the agriculture community. As far as I can tell he’d be comfortable with requiring regulations on agriculture—and large dog breeders are a part of this market—that would make it much less efficient to raise livestock.” So really, what this is about is money. Blame Santorum for wanting to end horse slaughter. Blame the HSUS.

But if you substitute the word “money” for “humane” in your article, it’s pretty clear why you’ve taken the stance you did. Your facts are all wrong, Frank. If you want to discredit Santorum, there are far easier ways to do it than making stuff up.

Frank Miniter finds it easy to repeat pro-slaughter sound bites because they’ve been conveniently apportioned for lazy journalism by lobbyists and PR firms. Which lobbyists and PR firms? They include Olsson, Frank and Weeda (Brent “Revolving Door” Gattis and Charlie “Revolving Door” Stenholm), Gage LLC (Conrad “Revolving Door” Burns), Policy Directions (Steve Kopperud), and SciWords (David McKeon). Brent Gattis, the son of a Texan big beef honcho, was Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s aide and head staffer at the House Ag Committee shortly after college graduation (surprise!) before he went to work for Olsson, Frank and Weeda as, among other things, the lobbyist for Cavel International, the horse slaughterhouse in DeKalb IL, and Bel-Tex, the horse slaughterhouse in Ft. Worth TX.

Do your research, Frank. Find out where your unattributed quotes are coming from.

Correction: Olsson Frank Weeda serviced Dallas Crown (not Cavel) and Bel-Tex slaughterhouses, both in Texas. Makes sense, since Stenholm and Gattis are both Texas boys. It’s all in the family. (Look out, voters: while we’re busy arguing on Forbes, this Family runs the country.)

You adopted your cat from the Humane Society OF NEW YORK, not HSUS. Local shelters with the name “Humane Society” are not chapters of the national organization. In fact, several pet shelters with the words “humane society” in their names have changed their names to distance themselves from the much-loathed (by those in the trenches) HSUS.

The fact that the HSUS website offers general INFORMATION about shelters does not mean that HSUS runs or funds local humane societies. The ASPCA, Best Friends, Petfinder and many others have search features for people to find shelters in their towns.

Why don’t you call the Humane Sociey of New York yourself, ask them if they are connected to the Humane Society of the United States, and get back to us. The phone number is (212) 752-4840.

Robert, unlike you, I am not obsessed with the Humane Society. And who is “us” that you want me to get back to? You and the author? You and all the industry people who are scared to death of the 80% or Americans against the slaughter or horses and then cattle? It’s all about that, isn’t it? If you pass legislation protecting horses, wild horses, puppies in puppy mills, circus animals then the slippery slope means that Americans will eat less beef. It’s all about that. So no, I’m not calling the Humane Society of NY. My dog has all its shots for the year, so I’m good until next Springtime. If you want to call the HS of NY, though, yourself, be my guess. I suspect, though, you have done that already. In which case congratulations. You’ve done more research into the issues than Mr. Miniter has.

And I didn’t mean to suggest that 80% of Americans are against the slaughter of cattle—so let me correct that. Only that the industry is scared that any regulations protecting horses might later be applied to cattle.

Vickery, I am far from an industry person and I am not pro-horse slaughter. I am, however, angry about the tens of millions of dollars a year that are donated to the HSUS by people who think HSUS runs their local humane societies. Countless animal advocates are angry about that too. I don’t even like the Humane Society of New York, as they were not very helpful when I stopped by to look at the adoptable dogs. I hope they have improved their operations.

Remember, a major source for this story was a long article by an animal rights newspaper. Animal People exposed some of the behind the scenes machinations involving Rick Santorum, Wayne Pacelle and others. It’s not flattering, but it happened.

You mean the article from 1995? Sounds suspiciously like someone’s been spending a lot of time over at HumaneWatch, the Center for Consumer Freedom or the Animal Welfare Council. All of those are dedicated to toppling HSUS for supporting legislation antithetical to animal agriculture, breeding and entertainment industries, such as the legislation trying to ban horse slaughter and export of slaughter that Frank Miniter claims is “inhumane.” These groups focus on the adoption issue to rally support, but what they really want to do is remove funding from groups like HSUS which pushes for legislation that cuts into their business. But enough. Time to walk the dog.

Animal People criticized HSUS’s self-serving shenanigans in 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and even in the current issue, which devotes a lot of space to their deal with the egg industry. Read it. Animal People is also fair and balanced in their HSUS coverage, giving credit where credit is due. I was reading it long before Humane Watch or even CCF existed. I’m an animal welfare/animal rights person, depending on the issue. Trying to link everyone who has problems with HSUS to CCF is insulting and a lame effort to DISTRACT from the reality that so many of their critics are involved in various forms of animal welfare work. Even you were fooled about the relationship between HSUS and local shelters – or were you faking it? Finally, charities aren’t LEGALLY ALLOWED to to spend significant time and money on legislation and politics. HSUS tries to hide it, but not very well. And many (not all) of their legislative proposals really suck, in the opinion of animal people who are in it for the right reasons.

Mr. Minter, I’ll just comment on two of the erroneous statements you made. You say “animals overbreed” as if the excess number of horses were a result of these animals breeding with abandon and here we are, having to send them to slaughter. There are more horses than the market will bear because breeders want the numbers so they can make money on it. The AQHA, the “pony mill” industry of the equine world makes money every time they register a new foal and they recently celebrated the “millionth” foal registered. They forgot to mention how many went to slaughter because of this reckless and irresponsible practice that they, the people, created for monetary gain. Then they make money when they send them to slaughter because they weren’t the right conformation or the right color, or the right whatever. The second point I’d like to clarify is that stopping slaughter was not inhumane. Since you are repeating the mantra of all those “horse lovers” that it is slaughter that will help these horses and will make their lives humane you should spend a half hour on you tube and watch just how humane slaughter is. There are also many testimonies in the public record, including the one from Dr. Lester Friedlander, DVM & former Chief USDA Inspector, who testified in Congress in 2008 that the captive bolt used to slaughter horses is simply not effective. “Horses are very sensitive about anything coming towards their heads and cannot be restrained as required for effective stunning. These animals regain consciousness 30 seconds after being struck, they are fully aware of being vivisected.” Sending these animals to slaughter puts money in the pockets of people who use horses and provides them with an easy way to dispose and make it profitable to dispose of them in this, most horrific way. If these people really wanted to be “humane” they would get a vet to euthanise the horse. Slaughter is not euthanasia.

I’m amazed that a writer for Forbes would do such a lamentable amount of research for an article – banning slaughter more inhumane? Even before slaughter moved to Mexico and Canada, slaughter-haulers were deliberately gouging horses eyes out and wiring their mouths closed to keep them quiet in the trucks. Slaughter technology was the same…the captive bolts rarely killed with one shot; even in the best case they merely stun the horse that wakes just in time to be awake for its vivsection. As for the over-abundance of horses, the primary source of same is overproduction by huge commercial concerns, not merely private owners whose horses have become too expensive. For a few more dollars they send healthy animals to horrific torturous deaths…these farms, making profits in the millions, should absorb the cost of human euthanasia as part of the cost of doing business, and as for mom and part, the cost of euthanizing a 1000 pound horse and disposing of it is about 200 dollars in comparison to a 100 pound dog…which is about 150 dollars…sounds like a bargain to me. I’ve had both horses and dogs for many years, and i accept the cost of euthanasia of my horse as part of responsable care. But i digress….this auther is a moron that doesn’t belong in a magazine of calibre of Forbes’ if unable to better research his articles.

The most convoluted nonlogic I have ever read. Seriously, does anyone moderate/review or otherwise monitor such ramblings? Would be nice if you got some facts straight. Here is a direct quote from the GAO report: “GAO suggests that Congress may wish to reconsider restrictions on the use of federal funds to inspect horses for slaughter or, instead, consider a permanent ban on horse slaughter. GAO recommends that USDA issue a final rule to protect horses through more of the transportation chain to slaughter and consider ways to better leverage resources for compliance activities. USDA agreed with GAO’s recommendations and noted specific actions it will take to implement them.”

Thank you, thank you, thank you for bringing this important information to the public’s attention! Unfortunately, HSUS and Peta are doing to Senator Santorum what they do so well.. playing on the heartstrings of caring animal lovers and then duping them to further their agenda. What is that agenda? Ultimately it is to end all animal ownership, period.. It is a multi-faceted approach that is too involved to fully discuss in detail in a comment box. However, the goal has been to pass what appears to be “reasonable” laws that make sense on the surface. However, most of these laws or proposed laws have long lasting consequences that will actually hurt the pets they purport to protect, (not unlike what happened with the horse slaughter), and ultimately end pet ownership altogether. PETA has stated very publicly, that they want to end pet ownership and HSUS’ plan is to ultimately start out with “reasonable” laws pertaining to breeders and then tighten the laws. The first to go will be the responsible breeders, those who do it for the love of their respective breeds, who pour their heart and soul into their pets and are working tirelessly to improve the health/longevity of their breed(s). These breeders operate in the red, they do not live off the backs of their pets. They *might* if they’re lucky, break even. They will be the first to go because they cannot afford the exorbitant licensing fees and the compliance requirements, which by the way, are the very antithesis of proper socialization for a family pet. That will leave the commercial breeders who do and will continue to do just the bare minimum to be in compliance, because their animals are just a means to a financial end, not the beloved family pets of the responsible breeders. Good breeders whelp and raise their litters in the spare bedroom, living room or elsewhere inside their homes so the puppies can receive socialization to humans and all the sights/sounds they will encounter in their new homes. The PUPS and PAWS regulations would prohibit this. Litters would need to be whelped/raised in a sterile, (i.e. separate, concrete enclosure), environment. Why?? because Federal bureaucrats don’t have a clue of what is required to properly socialize a pet! Which breeder would you prefer to get your pet from?? PLEASE!! THESE LAWS ARE BEING ENACTED ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY!! If you are a pet owner and would like to continue owning pets get involved and help to stop these damaging laws. There are many GOOD laws on the books already that protect our animals, they are not being enforced due to lack of funding and manpower. More laws won’t make it better and will only hurt. If you would like to learn more, here are some good links to check out www.naiaonline.org www.adoa.org and www.humanewatch.org Thank you for reading!!

Sadly, farmers , hunters and animal-based business organizations seem to always take the side for cruelty. It should not just be about maximizing profits and human pleasures. It should be about that AND protecting animals from suffering. I am a compassionate fiscal conservative. Too bad the cruelty branch of conservatism has taken over the Republican Party. It makes Independents like me more aware of how little compassion many conservatives have and how dangerous they are for those without power in our society, like our fellow creatures.

In regards to Rick Santorum, and the legislative likes of him, (and in Pennsylvania the numbers seem to be increasing), as the President of the Clarion – Venango – Forest County Farm Bureau I find his voting record in regards to Agricultural Issues very disturbing, and in saying so, it has created allot of distrust in regards to, as to how he will vote in the future. I also sit on the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau “Farmer Committee Board” which is a political pact that it’s primarily function is to recognize State Political figures that represent the Agricultural Community in a positive fashion. This information is then used to inform our State Membership as to who is voting for us. A major portion of that assessment is based on Voting Record. We have found that a number of our legislators who were at one time, sometimes even a long time, are now no longer voting in our favor. This does bring one to question their Motive, or should I say their Political Agenda! The Farm Bureau, whether it be on a County level, a State level, or a National level is probably one of the strongest Grass Roots run organization in the United States today. We support and develop strong Educational and Legislative programs. One area that is probably of most importance to us is the support and development of our “Young Farmers & Ranchers. We understand that they are not only our future food producers, but also our future leaders. It is important that we not only mentor these young folks, but we support their ideals and ideas. Recently the head of our local County Farm Bureau Young Farmer & Rancher Committee spoke out against one of our State Representatives who’s attached himself politically to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and has been recently recognized by the HSUS for his strong support to their efforts, which as noted in the above column is in direct conflict of our Agricultural efforts. Young John Scott may not have addressed the matter in an acceptable “Politically Correct” fashion, but “Bravo for John Scott” for standing up for what he believe’s in, and making it known! We of the Farm Bureau feel as though, together with “Farmer Friendly Weather” & “Farmer Friendly Regulations” our Young Farmer & Ranchers will be able to not only continue to sustain “Feeding the World”, but also be able to “Make a Decent Living” in doing so. In regards to folks the likes of Santorum, maybe they should consider the old adage “It’s not smart to bite the hand that feeds you!” My Opinion…….Brady D. Kadunce